annieT wrote:This has been both informative and confusing to me. On one hand, every other thread here speaks to the lack of jobs available for lawyers and how no one knows what is happening to biglaw positions after 3 years. OTOH, we read how important ties are. Why would any firm care a whit about your ties to a location if they plan to unload you in 3 years anyway? And if any attorney position is so difficult to attain from the getgo then, again, why would the employers worry that you will leave soon w/o any ties to the area? Wouldn't they have lines out the door of folks waiting to take your place anyhow? Wouldn't they feel pretty secure that you'll stick around simply because there's nowhere else to find another job? Or are we speaking solely about anything BUT biglaw in this context?

Attrition is expensive. Yes, the BigLaw model depends on it, but it also depends on a certain number of people making it through. When there is an oversupply of applicants there is no reason not to have 100% of your incoming classes check all the boxes. BigLaw wants to get rid of you, not have people with one foot out the door before they even begin. First years are completely fungible. But once you get past that, there is not a line of people to replace you. While some people are looking to lateral, most associates are dropping out of the model when they leave. Already some firms are starting to feel the pinch of reduced hiring and layoffs. If the economy doesn't tank, people who survived being Lathamed will be sitting pretty soon.

annieT wrote:This has been both informative and confusing to me. On one hand, every other thread here speaks to the lack of jobs available for lawyers and how no one knows what is happening to biglaw positions after 3 years. OTOH, we read how important ties are. Why would any firm care a whit about your ties to a location if they plan to unload you in 3 years anyway? And if any attorney position is so difficult to attain from the getgo then, again, why would the employers worry that you will leave soon w/o any ties to the area? Wouldn't they have lines out the door of folks waiting to take your place anyhow? Wouldn't they feel pretty secure that you'll stick around simply because there's nowhere else to find another job? Or are we speaking solely about anything BUT biglaw in this context?

Attrition is much, much, much lower in secondary markets than in big cities. Its far less up and out and they choose their classes much more carefully (5-10 SAs vs 50+ kind of changes the whole equation).

That is adorable. Ties are personal and familial ties to an area. Some firms do not view going to college as a sufficient tie. If you truly don't have any ties I would suggest "my significant other" is from here, or "my sibling lives here".

My theory is that the emphasis on ties is left over from the previous generation, where you could easily find a new biglaw job and move on if you wanted to.

That is adorable. Ties are personal and familial ties to an area. Some firms do not view going to college as a sufficient tie. If you truly don't have any ties I would suggest "my significant other" is from here, or "my sibling lives here".

My theory is that the emphasis on ties is left over from the previous generation, where you could easily find a new biglaw job and move on if you wanted to.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was referring to the strength of connections between people in a social network. Ties can definitely be personal and familial, but I'm not talking about the area itself. If you have family that is in the network of an employer and the employer has strong ties to someone in your family, then that would bridge the gap. If your family had zero ties to the employer, then the strength of the tie between you and your family member would not be as important because the tie between the family member and the employer would not be much stronger than the tie between you and the employer. The tie from going to the same college as an employer would at least give a weak tie through being part of the same alumni network, but it could be absent or negative if they were different schools.

A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. I was referring to the strength of connections between people in a social network. Ties can definitely be personal and familial, but I'm not talking about the area itself. If you have family that is in the network of an employer and the employer has strong ties to someone in your family, then that would bridge the gap. If your family had zero ties to the employer, then the strength of the tie between you and your family member would not be as important because the tie between the family member and the employer would not be much stronger than the tie between you and the employer. The tie from going to the same college as an employer would at least give a weak tie through being part of the same alumni network, but it could be absent or negative if they were different schools.

That is adorable. Ties are personal and familial ties to an area. Some firms do not view going to college as a sufficient tie. If you truly don't have any ties I would suggest "my significant other" is from here, or "my sibling lives here".

My theory is that the emphasis on ties is left over from the previous generation, where you could easily find a new biglaw job and move on if you wanted to.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was referring to the strength of connections between people in a social network. Ties can definitely be personal and familial, but I'm not talking about the area itself. If you have family that is in the network of an employer and the employer has strong ties to someone in your family, then that would bridge the gap. If your family had zero ties to the employer, then the strength of the tie between you and your family member would not be as important because the tie between the family member and the employer would not be much stronger than the tie between you and the employer. The tie from going to the same college as an employer would at least give a weak tie through being part of the same alumni network, but it could be absent or negative if they were different schools.

That is adorable. Ties are personal and familial ties to an area. Some firms do not view going to college as a sufficient tie. If you truly don't have any ties I would suggest "my significant other" is from here, or "my sibling lives here".

My theory is that the emphasis on ties is left over from the previous generation, where you could easily find a new biglaw job and move on if you wanted to.

How are they going to know if you have personal/family ties? Do they just straight up ask? Personal/family ties arent really something they can gather from a resume.

That is adorable. Ties are personal and familial ties to an area. Some firms do not view going to college as a sufficient tie. If you truly don't have any ties I would suggest "my significant other" is from here, or "my sibling lives here".

My theory is that the emphasis on ties is left over from the previous generation, where you could easily find a new biglaw job and move on if you wanted to.

How are they going to know if you have personal/family ties? Do they just straight up ask? Personal/family ties arent really something they can gather from a resume.

You tell them in your cover letter. "I am particularly interested in Dewey, Cheathem, and Howe because I grew up in [wherever]/my parents live in [wherever]/my fiancee's entirely family lives in [wherever], and I plan to practice there after graduation." And when you're in an interview and they ask, "So, why are you interested in our firm?", that's one of the things you tell them. (Probably not the first thing - the first should be about all the wonderful things about their firm that make you want to work there - but you can work it in there.)

You could also tell them that you're literally tied to the region because you just bought a house there, people in other areas don't understand your accent, it has the only climate that doesn't make you depressed and sick, and you're on probation and not allowed to leave the state.